Several new details were revealed about a high-profile Tennessee murder investigation and case at a motions hearing on Thursday.
Jason Chen, 24, is charged with one murder in the first degree in the death of 22-year-old Jasmine “Jazzy” Pace.
Pace disappeared while the defendant and victim were dating. Her family last saw her alive on November 22, 2022. By the end of the month, Chen had been charged with her murder.
Pace’s body was discovered on December 1, 2022, wrapped in a garbage bag and stuffed inside a suitcase near Suck Creek Road in a rural Chattanooga area.
According to police, the young woman was handcuffed and had both ankles bound to her right wrist. She had been stabbed approximately 60 times.
In one key motion that consumed a significant amount of time during Thursday’s proceedings, the defense sought to exclude a lengthy video culled from body-worn camera footage of a warrant-authorized search that resulted in Chen being led away in handcuffs.
“This video should not be admissible at trial for a variety of reasons,” Chen’s defense attorney stated.
The video depicts the defendant “in the state of undress.” There is no Miranda Warning. It is unclear whether these are voluntary statements to law enforcement.
Law enforcement is using my client as a translator to inform my client’s parents that they have a search warrant and will be entering the premises.”
Chen’s attorney went on to repeatedly criticize law enforcement for making the arrest while executing a search warrant. According to him, “the most important thing is the placing of handcuffs.”
The lawyer argued that images of his client being handcuffed had no probative value and were instead unfair and prejudicial.
The defense attorney also brought up language barrier issues raised by the video of the search and subsequent arrest.
Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Boyd M. Patterson, for his part, was somewhat sympathetic to the defense’s claims.
The judge stated, “This appears to be a legal discussion.” “Mr. Chen inquires about the cause, wants details, and the fact that he is speaking Mandarin to his parents. I’m concerned if I don’t understand what that means.
And there may be a juror who believes they know enough Mandarin to make a mistaken interpretation of what happened.”
The state, on the other hand, argued that the video was relevant because it served as a form of identification, locating the defendant at the searched location. The prosecution also argued that the jury should consider Chen’s “demeanor” during the encounter.
Furthermore, the state stated that the video showed Chen wearing a “particular article of clothing” — a reference to his red hat in the footage. The prosecutor stated that the hat would “be seen throughout numerous other recordings of other locations on different days.”
“That is highly, highly relevant,” the prosecutor claimed. “Highly probative.”
Chen’s defense attorney fired back, flatly dismissing those arguments.
“The state wants to introduce this because they want the jury to see the defendant arrested, placed in handcuffs and transported to, well eventually, to the jail,” said the prosecution’s attorney.
“What impression does that convey? It conveys the impression of guilt. Witnessing someone being arrested and placed in the back of a police car gives the jury the impression of guilt.
This is why it is an unfair prejudice. There was nothing said that was incriminating, at least as far as we know today. “That video has absolutely no probative value.”
The alleged killer’s lawyer went on to criticize the demeanor argument as having “marginal probative value.” He asked aloud what displaying the defendant “calm six days after” Pace’s death was supposed to demonstrate.
“What type of demeanor is he supposed to have?” the defense attorney demanded.
In the end, the judge awarded wins to both sides based on the poorly lit and frequently difficult-to-see body-worn camera footage.
“This is what I’d like to do,” Patterson explained. “I believe there is a risk of unfair prejudice in that video.
What I’d like to do in general is have you provide a 30-second clip of what you believe captures a demeanor in your interaction — obviously with the red hat in the location to be searched.
And I think that’s about as far as I’m comfortable with this video. I believe there is a significant risk of unfair prejudice in some of this video.”
Finally, the prosecution was ordered to edit the footage and resubmit a shorter version. The judge will make a final decision based on the content of the resulting edits.
On Thursday, a number of other motions were resolved.
Patterson also denied a defense motion to stop referring to Pace as a “victim” during the trial. Additionally, the judge denied a defense motion to suppress an illustration created by a state medical professional.
That illustration is a composite of photographs taken from various angles of the suitcase in which Pace was found. The resulting composite image depicts “coloration” as the handcuffs push through the fabric.
Jury selection will start next Wednesday. The trial is set to begin on January 13.
